The point of the article was clear. It’s a huge tax bill that has major ramifications for many, including how this might affect MLB and the Twins and their potential sale. Just stick to that last part. That’s what this discussion is about and was made clear in the article. Should the author have mentioned the other things? They obviously felt it was necessary to illustrate how some points get buried in these all-encompassing bills and that we may not have noticed or realized; the editors obviously thought it was necessary, so there it is. Do I think it was? No, I think they could have still made their point without it but big deal. Focus on what is pertinent for this website and just ignore the rest. If you and others are so offended by it that you can’t understand the point of the article to stay on track, then just walk away. It’s that simple. It’s unfortunate that real discourse can’t happen, but that’s the way of it, so stick to baseball. As a moderator I sometimes cringe when I see articles like this, especially if I think points could have been made without it and wonder if there is an agenda. I don’t know, I don’t know Peter so I can’t say, and neither do any of you. You are making assumptions and then accusations based on assumptions. Every time I think maybe we can all be adult about this, for once, and every time I am disappointed. Stick to baseball despite what you may feel is an overstep by the author.
I have let a lot of comments slide despite my earlier warning. Further conversation that isn’t specifically discussing the baseball points of this article will be removed.